• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michelle Obama's Miscarriage

Felis Leo said:
Perhaps we could look at this from a historical precedent. By that I mean we should ask: How were miscarriages treated in states and jurisdictions where it was illegal to obtain an abortion prior to the passage of Roe v. Wade? Were women who suffered from miscarriages regularly criminally prosecuted for having killed their unborn children?
Click to expand...

If there was reason to overturn RvW....you dont think that they would?

The world is much much different now.

Are you implying that since it wouldnt be properly enforced now, that it's ok to pass legislation that violates many of women's Constitutional rights, our bodily sovereignty, even ends our lives?
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, even if I disagree with them, I understand that if one believes abortion is a form of homicide, that is one of the few places government has a say. If one believes that a government's only role is to protect the life, liberty and property of its people, there is no one more vulnerable than the unborn. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Does the govt have the right to choose to protect the unborn and not women? To reduce women to 2nd class citizens again? SCOTUS already examined blacks and women, and determined we are equal and recognized our rights. They did the same for the unborn and did NOT find them equal nor recognize ANY rights. Can you give some legal basis for SCOTUS to reconsider those decisions?

The unborn and born cannot be treated equally under the law. Nor ethically or practically.

What is your reasoning that the unborn should have rights that supersede women's?
 
Lursa said:
Does the govt have the right to choose to protect the unborn and not women?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. A government has an absolute right to choose where it extends its protection. Presently our government allows the absolute freedom of women to have an abortion for any reason or no reason whatsoever.

Lursa said:
To reduce women to 2nd class citizens again?
Click to expand...

So, it was only Roe v. Wade and the right to have an abortion that has allowed women not to be second class citizens? Not the right to vote or hold public office? Not the right to non-discrimination in employment? That it is the legal right to abort their fetus that makes a woman a fully-realized human being?

Lursa said:
SCOTUS already examined blacks and women, and determined we are equal and recognized our rights. They did the same for the unborn and did NOT find them equal nor recognize ANY rights.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is incorrect. Late-term abortions in most cases are still not legal to perform. So to say that unborn children have no rights whatsoever is incorrect.

Lursa said:
Can you give some legal basis for SCOTUS to reconsider those decisions?
Click to expand...

Even if I cared to state my legal opinion (which I do not at present), my objections to most pro-choice arguments are philosophical and moral. Not legal.

Lursa said:
The unborn and born cannot be treated equally under the law. Nor ethically or practically.
Click to expand...

Why not? What makes an unborn baby just one day from being born fundamentally different from a newborn baby?

Lursa said:
What is your reasoning that the unborn should have rights that supersede women's?
Click to expand...

Because, in an ideal world in which medical technology advanced to the point where any woman could give birth to a child without the risk of dying in childbirth, I believe that an unborn child's right to live supersedes the mother's right to kill and extricate that said unborn child. But since we do not live in that ideal world, I am pro-choice, and for no other reason than that. If you wish to try and convince me that there are plenty of other good reasons beyond the risks to health for a mother to be able to kill their unborn child rather than bear and give birth to the child and give the child up for adoption afterward, I welcome you to give me your reasons.
 
Lursa said:
If there was reason to overturn RvW....you dont think that they would?
Click to expand...

Almost certainly they would, since many conservatives see on-demand abortion as the height of moral infamy. And while I am sympathetic to their viewpoints, I do not agree that abortion should be disallowed in its entirety.

Lursa said:
The world is much much different now.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. But not necessarily better in all ways. A better world would be one in which no woman chose to seek to end the life of what would have otherwise been a healthy unborn child, even when given the absolute freedom to choose to do so.

Lursa said:
Are you implying that since it wouldnt be properly enforced now, that it's ok to pass legislation that violates many of women's Constitutional rights, our bodily sovereignty, even ends our lives?
Click to expand...

Many of women's constitutional rights? As far as I am aware, there is only one Constitutional right on the table, which is the right to seek an abortion. As far bodily sovereignty, I am not sure bodily sovereignty is a right under the constitution, nor do I think it should be. Otherwise, suicide on demand would be a right. It is the last one, the right to life, that concerns me. The sole reason that I am pro-choice is that it allows women to mitigate the risks to their own lives caused by pregnancy. So that I am perfectly sympathetic to.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Well, yes. A government has an absolute right to choose where it extends its protection. Presently our government allows the absolute freedom of women to have an abortion for any reason or no reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is pretty clear that the govt's responsibility is to the people. And right now, the unborn are not recognized as such, so unless a formal change is made, then the govt does NOT have the right to stop protecting women in favor of the unborn.


So, it was only Roe v. Wade and the right to have an abortion that has allowed women not to be second class citizens? Not the right to vote or hold public office? Not the right to non-discrimination in employment? That it is the legal right to abort their fetus that makes a woman a fully-realized human being?
Click to expand...

I didnt write that. SCOTUS determined in previous decades that blacks and women were equal.


Actually, that is incorrect. Late-term abortions in most cases are still not legal to perform. So to say that unborn children have no rights whatsoever is incorrect.
Click to expand...

You are wrong again. Many states have no term limits on abortion. Also it's a self-limiting issue: no elective late term abortions take place anyway.

And the unborn have no rights. None.

U.S. Code: § 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Click to expand...


Even if I cared to state my legal opinion (which I do not at present), my objections to most pro-choice arguments are philosophical and moral. Not legal.
Click to expand...

Is that honest naivete or complete dismissal of women's lives? Is it your belief that abortion could be made illegal and not have severe societal and personal consequences and Constitutional rights violations for women?

All of which would be forced on women without our consent? That the govt could force women to remain pregnant against their will?

Not sure how that is anything remotely viewed as a moral High Ground.


Why not? What makes an unborn baby just one day from being born fundamentally different from a newborn baby?
Click to expand...

I'm happy to copy and paste the long list of physiological differences...but before I do that, here's a couple of other things:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

The unborn is completely, physiologically intertwined with the mother, yet the mother could be removed from the connection and survive. And infant could survive. The unborn cannot.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

Another point is that before birth, the state cannot act on the unborn without the consent of the woman without violating her rights.
 
Because, in an ideal world in which medical technology advanced to the point where any woman could give birth to a child without the risk of dying in childbirth, I believe that an unborn child's right to live supersedes the mother's right to kill and extricate that said unborn child. But since we do not live in that ideal world, I am pro-choice, and for no other reason than that. If you wish to try and convince me that there are plenty of other good reasons beyond the risks to health for a mother to be able to kill their unborn child rather than bear and give birth to the child and give the child up for adoption afterward, I welcome you to give me your reasons.
Click to expand...

So you are very clear that you place the life of the unborn ahead of a woman's if you dont consider the entirety of a life. Breathing and a heartbeat are physiological functions common to all higher living organisms. Why do you value that above the entirety of a life, all it's made up of?

I value quality of life, not quantity. Why should the unborn be offered the entirety of a life at the expense of the same exact thing for a woman?

Also, how do you justify encouraging the birth of more unwanted/unaffordable children when there are already more than 100,000 kids in the US awaiting adoption? (Not the ones in foster care, the ones actually available for adoption). These kids are aware, waiting. For every newborn born, the chances of an older kid finding a home become less. THese kids are waiting and hoping for families.
 
Lursa said:
So you are very clear that you place the life of the unborn ahead of a woman's if you dont consider the entirety of a life. Breathing and a heartbeat are physiological functions common to all higher living organisms. Why do you value that above the entirety of a life, all it's made up of?
Click to expand...

Please do not tell me what I believe Lursa, and I will return the courtesy not tell you what you believe. The reason I value human life, including the unborn, is because I believe human beings have practically-infinite potential. And, I realize that this may sound really weird coming from a conservative Republican: Even children who are born to poor families can end up having value to their society and to humankind as a whole.

Lursa said:
I value quality of life, not quantity. Why should the unborn be offered the entirety of a life at the expense of the same exact thing for a woman?
Click to expand...

Then, from a philosophical point view of principle, would you be for the legalization infanticide? If the mother has regrets post-birth and realizes that her economic situation has little to no hope of improving, would it not be kinder for the mother to allow her to improve her economic conditions before starting a family? Wouldn't it be kinder to euthanize the child so he or she doesn't grow up in a cycle of self-perpetuating poverty, or be stuck in a cold unloving foster-care or adoption system? If you would not be in favor of this, why not?

Lursa said:
Also, how do you justify encouraging the birth of more unwanted/unaffordable children when there are already more than 100,000 kids in the US awaiting adoption? (Not the ones in foster care, the ones actually available for adoption). These kids are aware, waiting. For every newborn born, the chances of an older kid finding a home become less. THese kids are waiting and hoping for families.
Click to expand...

I justify it on the basis that you cannot, from a moral point of view, use existing circumstances of the misery of the broken American Adoption system to justify killing the unborn. The reason is threefold. First, the adoption system is a crapshoot. There are plenty of newborn unwanted children who quickly find homes. There are others who do not. Second, there is no limiting principle, i.e., the very same principle used to justify abortion can be used to justify the euthanization of newly-born unwanted children, in order to favor the adoption of older children. Third, it also contains the unspoken corollary that if the adoption system were fixed, that abortion should be disallowed because now the adoption system isn't overcrowded and the as-yet unborn children would be able to find a home.
 
Lursa said:
I didnt write that. SCOTUS determined in previous decades that blacks and women were equal.
Click to expand...

True, but that was after stating for decades that they were not. I am making a philosophical and moral argument, not a legal one. And I would not turn to the Supreme Court's decisions for moral backing on any particular issue.


Lursa said:
Is that honest naivete or complete dismissal of women's lives? Is it your belief that abortion could be made illegal and not have severe societal and personal consequences and Constitutional rights violations for women?

All of which would be forced on women without our consent? That the govt could force women to remain pregnant against their will?

Not sure how that is anything remotely viewed as a moral High Ground.
Click to expand...

Well, I figured that anyone I genuinely do care about women's lives. But only insofar as matters of their health is concerned (i.e., their literal lives). Hence, why I am pro-choice. I just do not accept the other arguments as legitimate reasons to be pro-choice, as I consider many to be logically fatuous to downright evil.

Lursa said:
I'm happy to copy and paste the long list of physiological differences...but before I do that, here's a couple of other things:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

The unborn is completely, physiologically intertwined with the mother, yet the mother could be removed from the connection and survive. And infant could survive. The unborn cannot.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

Another point is that before birth, the state cannot act on the unborn without the consent of the woman without violating her rights.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have been more clear, because this is just a legal argument, when I am actually trying to grasp more at the moral principles that have led you to being pro choice. To clarify, what makes the baby a day from birth (or an hour from birth) fundamentally different from a philosophical or moral point of view from a day-old infant?
 
Felis Leo said:
Please do not tell me what I believe Lursa, and I will return the courtesy not tell you what you believe. The reason I value human life, including the unborn, is because I believe human beings have practically-infinite potential. And, I realize that this may sound really weird coming from a conservative Republican: Even children who are born to poor families can end up having value to their society and to humankind as a whole.
Click to expand...

This is an exceedingly common belief. But...

The born and unborn CANNOT be treated equally. Not legally, not morally.

The state cannot act on the unborn without the mother's consent without violating many of her Constitutional rights and her bodily sovereignty.

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

That's not just a legal reference, how ethical or moral is that treatment of women?
 
Felis Leo said:
Then, from a philosophical point view of principle, would you be for the legalization infanticide? If the mother has regrets post-birth and realizes that her economic situation has little to no hope of improving, would it not be kinder for the mother to allow her to improve her economic conditions before starting a family? Wouldn't it be kinder to euthanize the child so he or she doesn't grow up in a cycle of self-perpetuating poverty, or be stuck in a cold unloving foster-care or adoption system? If you would not be in favor of this, why not?
Click to expand...

Of course not. THere is no need to impose unjustly on the bodily sovereignty or Constitutional rights of the mother OR father anyone else in murder of any kind. A parent can give a child up to the state without killing it, you write as if that possibility does not exist.
 
Felis Leo said:
I justify it on the basis that you cannot, from a moral point of view, use existing circumstances of the misery of the broken American Adoption system to justify killing the unborn. The reason is threefold. First, the adoption system is a crapshoot. There are plenty of newborn unwanted children who quickly find homes. There are others who do not. Second, there is no limiting principle, i.e., the very same principle used to justify abortion can be used to justify the euthanization of newly-born unwanted children, in order to favor the adoption of older children. Third, it also contains the unspoken corollary that if the adoption system were fixed, that abortion should be disallowed because now the adoption system isn't overcrowded and the as-yet unborn children would be able to find a home.
Click to expand...


???How is the adoption system broken? :lamo OMG are you using that as an excuse and thus not realizing that it is the people that guilt women into giving birth when they dont want to or cannot care for a child? Or as it seems, one that would see elective abortion made illegal and thus hundreds of thousands more kids added to the adoption pool...and WONDERING why they're not being adopted?


The system isnt broken, there are too many unwanted and unaffordable kids! And you believe it is remotely ethical to encourage women *who cant care for a kid* to have it anyway and dump it in that system?

Maybe you should reconsider where that moral High Ground actually is.
 
Felis Leo said:
True, but that was after stating for decades that they were not. I am making a philosophical and moral argument, not a legal one. And I would not turn to the Supreme Court's decisions for moral backing on any particular issue.
Click to expand...

And yet you would see them change a current opinion because * you feel it is immoral.* And I dont. I believe that the disrespect to women and girls in our society, the violations of our rights, far outweighs any benefits that could come from recognizing rights or equality for the unborn.

Can you list any negative affects of abortion on our society? (And this question does not exclude morality)
 
Felis Leo said:
Perhaps I should have been more clear, because this is just a legal argument, when I am actually trying to grasp more at the moral principles that have led you to being pro choice. To clarify, what makes the baby a day from birth (or an hour from birth) fundamentally different from a philosophical or moral point of view from a day-old infant?
Click to expand...

There's a long list of physiological changes that take place at birth. Someone else here often posts it. So you are wrong that the differences are minor.

Here's a couple based on something besides physiology:

Before birth, the state cannot act on the unborn without a woman's consent. It requires violating her bodily sovereignty and some of her Constitutional rights. After birth is when someone's rights can be upheld without violating the rights of someone else (without due process).

That's the law...right? So you dont want to consider it. But then do you ever consider what the laws would mean to women in our society if our Constitutional rights were minimized in favor of the unborn and laws then forced us to remain pregnant against our will? For me, that is an appallingly immoral stance for the govt to ever assume.

And then there's this:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). None. It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​
 
Lursa said:
???How is the adoption system broken? :lamo OMG are you using that as an excuse and thus not realizing that it is the people that guilt women into giving birth when they dont want to or cannot care for a child? Or as it seems, one that would see elective abortion made illegal and thus hundreds of thousands more kids added to the adoption pool...and WONDERING why they're not being adopted?
Click to expand...

I am really not following your line of moral reasoning, Lursa. Are you implying that the women who did not want to abort their unborn children and instead gave them up for adoption made the wrong choice? That they were wrong for wanting a future for their biological children, even if they did not believe themselves capable of providing it for them? Or they were too ignorant and simply the victims of propaganda for making a decision you disagreed with? Do you wish those children were dead, Lursa? Or at the very least they had never been born?
 
Felis Leo said:
I am really not following your line of moral reasoning, Lursa. Are you implying that the women who did not want to abort their unborn children and instead gave them up for adoption made the wrong choice? That they were wrong for wanting a future for their biological children, even if they did not believe themselves capable of providing it for them? Or they were too ignorant and simply the victims of propaganda for making a decision you disagreed with? Do you wish those children were dead, Lursa? Or at the very least they had never been born?
Click to expand...

Er, I bolded the answer to your question in the post you responded to.
 
Felis Leo said:
Perhaps we could look at this from a historical precedent. By that I mean we should ask: How were miscarriages treated in states and jurisdictions where it was illegal to obtain an abortion prior to the passage of Roe v. Wade? Were women who suffered from miscarriages regularly criminally prosecuted for having killed their unborn children?
Click to expand...

You can read Roe v Wade to get your answer. The decision discusses that quite clearly
 
Felis Leo said:
Actually, that is incorrect. Late-term abortions in most cases are still not legal to perform. So to say that unborn children have no rights whatsoever is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are incorrect.

Late term abortions in most cases are still legal to perform. And, if you read Roe v Wade as I suggested earlier, the reason why the govt can regulate late term abortions has nothing to do with the unborn having any rights. Roe v Wade clearly states that the unborn have no rights
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
True, but that was after stating for decades that they were not. I am making a philosophical and moral argument, not a legal one. And I would not turn to the Supreme Court's decisions for moral backing on any particular issue.




Well, I figured that anyone I genuinely do care about women's lives. But only insofar as matters of their health is concerned (i.e., their literal lives). Hence, why I am pro-choice. I just do not accept the other arguments as legitimate reasons to be pro-choice, as I consider many to be logically fatuous to downright evil.



Perhaps I should have been more clear, because this is just a legal argument, when I am actually trying to grasp more at the moral principles that have led you to being pro choice. To clarify, what makes the baby a day from birth (or an hour from birth) fundamentally different from a philosophical or moral point of view from a day-old infant?
Click to expand...

If you have a moral or philosophical objection to abortion, there is a simple remedy:

Do not have one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom